Australians could still "listen to manosphere podcasts" or "say the moon landing was fake" under proposed new online safety laws, Anika Wells has stressed as she rubbished claims they would lead to government censorship. This was reported by Qazaqyia.kz citing The Guardian.

The communications minister also said she was considering updates to the digital duty of care laws to allow individual Australians to directly sue big tech companies flouting the new rules. This has been a key demand from the Greens for their support for the laws, while the Coalition accuses Labor of plans to "secretly control Australian speech".

"This is not about what people say on the internet," Wells told the National Press Club on Thursday. "It's about what platforms do on the internet, and your right to disagree with me or the government or believe whatever you want to believe will not be impinged by a digital duty of care. Your right to be free from harm, hopefully, will be improved."

Wells said that "if adults listen to manosphere podcasts, or people post their views about the government, or make memes, or want to say the moon landing was fake – they can continue to do so without restriction".

"We are not controlling free speech, and we are not conducting covert surveillance," Wells said.

The digital duty of care laws, introduced into parliament on Thursday after months of discussion and consultation, would add several planks to Australia's online safety regime. The government said it would place "an overarching obligation" for tech platforms "to provide a safe online environment for all Australians", and replacing an existing range of online codes and standards with a broader duty-of-care requirement to protect users from certain "harmful" content.

Wells has suggested misogynistic, pro-terror, suicide and self-harm, or eating disorder content would be captured by the laws, which will apply to platforms such as social media, online games, apps and chatbots.

"If you build it, you are responsible for its risks," Wells said, likening the reforms to having seatbelts in cars. "We must shift the burden from the shoulders of victims to the companies that are creating the environments where harms occur."

The changes also provide for what the government has dubbed "my feed my way", allowing social media users to opt-out of algorithmic content feeds and instead see content only from pages they have actively chosen to follow. Platforms face fines of more than $100m for non-compliance.

But the reforms have been met with ferocious opposition from conservative campaign groups and politicians, who have claimed the ability to class content as "harmful" would create a framework for government censorship.

The issue was a key talking point at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) conference in Brisbane over the weekend. The campaign group, Advance, has dubbed it a "Big Brother bill", likening it to Labor's dumped misinformation bill and collecting nearly 75,000 signatures on a petition calling for it to be scrapped.

Liberal frontbencher James Paterson claimed the bill was a bid "to secretly control Australian speech, to censor Australian speech". The shadow communications minister, Sarah Henderson, said the Coalition was vehemently opposed to the bill.

One key criticism is the ability of regulators and researchers to create so-called "sockpuppets", or pseudonymous accounts on various networks, which the government argues is critical to test how platforms are complying with legislation.

But rightwing media personalities, podcasters and politicians have railed against this provision. Pauline Hanson claimed it would lead to "swarms of AI-powered government bots to feed you propaganda and record what you do online".

Wells dismissed these suggestions, saying "sockpuppets" would only be used for research and enforcement purposes. The eSafety commissioner must report annually on its use of sockpuppets, and such accounts can engage with other users of an online service "only to the extent necessary to prevent closure of an account".

Wells said: "The idea that any capacity would be spent as an independent regulator trying to spread government propaganda, rather than trying to shut down pro-terror content going to 13-year-old boys in Western Sydney or eating disorder content going to 14-year-old girls in Western Australia, is not a tenable argument."

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young claimed the campaigns against the legislation were "running cover for big tech".

"To suggest this is about censorship or about shutting down anything is absolute rubbish. It is a fake debate, it's got nothing to do with it, and it is purely the radical right running the speaking points of big tech," she said.

The Greens are broadly supportive of the bill, but want Labor to strengthen rules, including adding the ability for ordinary Australians.